NDPS seizure mahazars may be prepared off-site for justified practical reasons.

Acting on information recorded in compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, DRI officers apprehended the petitioner at Yelahanka Railway Station on 20 December 2025.

Her trolley bag allegedly contained 491 grams of cocaine and 2,362 grams of amphetamine.

The officers took her, the bag and the panch witnesses to the DRI office at Kalyan Nagar, where the bag was opened and the contraband seized under a panchanama.

The petitioner was charged with offences under Sections 8(c), 21(c), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

After the Trial Court dismissed her bail application, she sought regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, contending that the seizure procedure did not comply with Section 43 of the NDPS Act and noting that she had no criminal antecedents and had been in custody for over nine months.

The DRI opposed bail, relying on the commercial quantity, alleged prior trips to Bengaluru to deliver contraband, and the reasons recorded for completing the seizure formalities at its office.

1. Whether taking the petitioner and her bag from the railway station to the DRI office before opening the bag and preparing the seizure panchanama constituted non-compliance with Section 43 of the NDPS Act.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail in light of the alleged commercial quantity and the restrictions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.

Section 43 of the NDPS Act empowers authorised officers to seize contraband in a public place or in transit; a railway station falls within the statutory explanation of “public place”.

Although seizure at the place of recovery is desirable, Khet Singh v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 380, recognises that a seizure mahazar may be prepared later where justifiable and reasonable grounds make preparation at the spot impracticable, provided the reasons are recorded.

Ashraf v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 2011 SCC OnLine Ker 3770, likewise cautions against construing Sections 42 and 43 so technically as to require procedural steps at a location where they are practically unsuitable.

Where the alleged contraband is of commercial quantity, Section 37(1)(b) imposes restrictions on bail.

The Court found that the seizure panchanama recorded reasons for moving the petitioner, her bag and the witnesses from the railway station: the station was a public, crowded place, and suitable secure facilities were unavailable nearby.

The officers conducted the seizure immediately after reaching their office, in the presence of the petitioner and the panch witnesses.

Applying Khet Singh and Ashraf, the Court held that Section 43 did not require the formal seizure proceedings to be completed at the station in those circumstances.

It also noted that the petitioner had not pleaded that the bag was tampered with before it was opened at the DRI office.

As to bail, the alleged contraband was of commercial quantity, and the record included material concerning the petitioner’s alleged earlier trips to Bengaluru to deliver similar bags.

The Court considered this material sufficient to make out a prima facie case; her custody and lack of criminal antecedents did not warrant bail at that stage.

Finding that the material on record made out a prima facie case, it dismissed the criminal petition and refused regular bail.